Resurrection

[WConn]

While I am getting ready for some night racing at Atlanta Motor Speedway, I thought I would come in and ask a question which might have been asked before, perhaps by me but I can't find a reasonable answer. I have been listening and watching some of the Lee Strobel videos, mostly debates between Atheists and Christians. One of the things I am curious about is why it took 3 or more decades after the death of Jesus and the resurrection for the books of the New Testament to be written? I find it unusual that they would not have been penned in the few years immediately following this incident. Anyone care to set me straight on this?

Thanks,
Walt

[David Blacklock]

Perhaps they thought the second coming was so eminent that there was no sense in writing what noone would be around to read.

DB

[cslewislover]

But why should they be? Those who preached probably kept notes, and as people got older and died, and the church spread, then things were written out more formally. We're so used to writing in our culture, and going out and buying books. It wasn't the same 2000 years ago. I am speaking of the gospels. Luke had his own reasons for writing his version of the gospels (to defend against certain attackers), and of Acts (which had much to do with defending Paul), when he did. The letters were written when they were for specific reasons, obviously, and Revelation after the revelation took place. Anyway, based on the contents of the gospels, one can see that different audiences were generally intended. Why was the written word necessary for those audiences at that time? That's the question, and that's where the answers would be. One could also ask why they were formally written so soon.

This doesn't answer everything, but I thought I'd post it anyway (from http://www.gotquestions.org/when-Gospels-written.html.

Question: "When were the Gospels written?"

Answer: It is important to understand that the dating of the Gospels and other New Testament books is at best an educated guess and at worst foolish speculation. For example, suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A.D. 40 to as late as A.D. 140. This wide range of dates from scholars indicates the subjective nature of the dating process. Generally, one will find that the presuppositions of the scholars greatly influence their dating of the Gospels.

For example, in the past many liberal theologians have argued for a later dating of many of the New Testament books than is probably warranted or valid, in an attempt to discredit or cast doubts upon the content and authenticity of the Gospel accounts. On the other hand, there are many scholars who look to a much earlier dating of the New Testament books. There are some that believe there is good evidence to support the view that the whole New Testament, including Revelation, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. It is our contention that the evidence supports the earlier dating more than it does the later dating.

There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew's Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Palestine. In fact Eusebius, (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history), reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Palestine to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 and as late as A.D. 55.

Even if the Gospels were not written until 30 years after Christ's death, that would still place the writing of them prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This presents no major problem with their authority or accuracy. Passing on oral traditions and teachings was commonplace in the Jewish culture of that day, and memorization was highly cultivated and practiced. Also, the fact that even at that time there would have been a considerable number of eyewitnesses around to dispute and discredit any false claims, and the fact that none of the “hard sayings” of Jesus were taken from the Gospel accounts, further supports their accuracy. Had the Gospels been edited before being written down, as some liberal scholars contend, then it was a very poor job. The writers left far too many “hard sayings,” and culturally unacceptable and politically incorrect accounts that would need explaining. An example of this is that the first witnesses of the resurrection were women, who were not considered reliable witnesses in the culture of that day.

[Jac3510]

That's a very good possibility, DB. It is also possible that there were written accounts before, but they were not formalized into gospels until later. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all seem to have relied upon written sources, and Luke expressly says that others had undertaken to write about the life of Christ.

Beyond that, the first century was a very oral-based culture. There wasn't a whole lot of writing. To record history only thirty years after it happened was actually pretty quick, or at least in line with everything else that was written back then. It's also worth noting that the Epistles (Romans-Jude) were written before the Gospels, so it isn't like NOTHING was written down.

[Gman]

While I am getting ready for some night racing at Atlanta Motor Speedway, I thought I would come in and ask a question which might have been asked before, perhaps by me but I can't find a reasonable answer. I have been listening and watching some of the Lee Strobel videos, mostly debates between Atheists and Christians. One of the things I am curious about is why it took 3 or more decades after the death of Jesus and the resurrection for the books of the New Testament to be written? I find it unusual that they would not have been penned in the few years immediately following this incident. Anyone care to set me straight on this?

Thanks,
Walt

For all we know there could have been other gospels written around that time too.. The ones we have now were the only ones found. This is over two thousand years ago folks.. A lot can happen after that...

[Santa]

Perhaps they thought the second coming was so eminent that there was no sense in writing what noone would be around to read.

DB

Didn't god inspire them, though? He would've known the second coming wasn't imminent - why wouldn't he have got them writing earlier? In order to get the word out and "save" more people?

[David Blacklock]

The inspired New Testament has phrases suggesting the imminent second coming.

DB